if you have property to rent, post notices on local Church bulletin boards...
Posted on 11/26/2011 6:24:37 AM PST by 1010RD
Alan S. Mills said apartment-to-rent newspaper ads stating that families with children were not welcome were common when he began practicing law 30 years ago.
Local, state and federal laws now prohibit discrimination based on familial status, Mills said.
But Mills, the legal director of the Uptown People's Law Center, said the situation has not changed much.
"Individual landlords still regularly turn down tenants because, they say, 'We don't want children in the building,'" Mills said.
Professor F. Willis Caruso, the co-executive director of The John Marshall Law School Fair Housing Legal Support Center, made the same contention.
Caruso said the center receives a good number of complaints from current or would-be renters or buyers who claim they were the target of discrimination because they have minor children.
Some people turn to government agencies with their claim that a property owner based a sales or rental decision on familial status in violation of the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance, the Illinois Human Rights Act or the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Allegations that a property owner discriminated on the basis of familial status generally come in third after allegations of housing bias on the basis of race or disability, according to entities that include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR).
For example, IDHR filed charges in 347 housing cases in the year ending Sept. 30, 2010.
Of those charges, 40 percent included race as a basis for discrimination, 39 percent included disability and 11 percent included familial status.
Mills said only a handful of cases involving allegations of housing discrimination based on familial status end up going to trial.
Property owners who are confronted with evidence that they violated laws barring such discrimination tend to settle out of court, Mills said.
A suit filed in federal court in Chicago on behalf of two single mothers may be among the cases that go to trial.
The suit alleges that the owner of the Greenwillow apartment complex in Glenview is violating the Human Rights Act and the FHA.
The suit alleges that Elisabeth Manly often scolds children who play in the yards, falsely accuses them of causing property damage and throws their toys away.
Manly also has verbally abused plaintiffs Alicia Ann Tyrrell and Toni J. Dini and threatened to evict them and their respective children, the suit alleges
And the suit alleges that Manly discouraged "testers" who claimed they had children from renting at Greenwillow while welcoming others who claimed they were childless.
But Manly contends that she is the victim.
Manly contends that the children routinely trample on bushes, deface the sidewalk, make excessive noise and ring tenants' doorbells and run away.
Manly also contends that Tyrrell herself has created problems by repeatedly refusing to allow Manly to enter her unit to conduct maintenance and by once blocking the front door of the next-door unit while Manly was showing it to a prospective tenant.
And Manly says the fact that she rented units to Tyrrell and Dini as well as to other tenants with children and recently renewed Dini's lease is evidence that she does not discriminate on the basis of familial status.
U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan earlier this week declined to issue a temporary restraining order that would have allowed Tyrrell to renew her lease when it expires on Nov. 30.
At a hearing on the matter, Der-Yeghiayan said he takes housing discrimination seriously.
But Der-Yeghiayan said Tyrrell failed to meet requirements for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The case is Alicia Ann Tyrrell, et al. v. Elisabeth Manly. No. 11 C 8207.
Attorneys representing Tyrrell and Dini include Elizabeth Shuman-Moore and Jessica A. Schneider, both of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc.
Also representing Tyrrell and Dini are William S. Weltman and Max A. Stein, both of Reed, Smith LLP.
Weltman and Stein are handling the case on a pro bono basis.
Manly is represented by Northbrook attorney Jeffrey R. Rosenberg of O'Halloran, Kosoff, Geitner & Cook LLC.
Legal experts say people often are unaware of laws forbidding housing discrimination on the basis of familial status.
A 2002 report prepared by The Urban Institute for HUD says only 38 percent of the members of the public who were randomly surveyed knew that the FHA prohibits treating households with children differently than households without them.
Mills, who emphasized that he was not speaking about a specific case, said many landlords also are unaware of their legal obligation not to discriminate against people with children.
But Mills said there is no basis — at least, not in Chicago — for such ignorance about the law
Mills said Chicago officials offer landlords free training concerning the law's requirements.
"So there's no excuse for a landlord who wants to do right not to do so," he said.
What we see in these "bias" cases is the exercise of power by a tyrannical government, trampling on the rights of property owners.
If I owned a duplex, and lived in one unit, I would not rent to anyone with kids, especially teenage kids. I can't believe it would against the law to put conditions on applicants. I have seen renters absolutely refuse to rent to smokers. How about not wanting a drunk or a druggie as a renter?
The previous occupants of my home were two parents with five children. Except for the writings on the walls, you would think they were five monkeys.
They were noisy, destructive, rude people, according to the neighbors and the remaining evidence.
The fault lies with the parents.
That said, it’s risky to rent to anyone these days. Too many laws favoring the unscrupulous.
I forgot about not renting to people with pets.
What comes to mind is first we would have parents who might teach their kids to be more respectful.
Second, where there is a market there will be demand and where their is demand their will be supply. Translated, we will have some landlords who would see a market to rent to families with children and provide rental units geared for them. Use of various noise reductions, play areas, day care center, storage etc could be apartments made to cater to families with children. In short, the needs of families with children could become more focused and lead to kid friendly places.
“Spoiled Children” are hard on the parents, family, extended family, neighbors, rental or owned property, surrounding real estate, local businesses, churches, play grounds, schools, spouses, ex-spouses, in-laws, and police departments..
“Spoiled children” are almost always “ruined”..
Its the parents “fault” the children didn’t ruin themselves..
This should be (”explained”) to parents ruining their children..
“Spoiled Children” is not a PC term... and should be used at every opportunity..
No landlord with an ounce of brains would say that. You do what you have to do to select tenants but say nothing.
I will rent to a family. No problem. But not any family. When I am showing a rental, I make sure the whole family is there. I watch how the kids react to the parents. I look to see if the kids are well groomed. I see how they behave. I also take the opportunity to look inside the family car. They will pretty much take care of my rental about the same as the take care of the inside of their car.
More and more apartment complexes are becomming more lenient in allowing pets. However, most of them also tack on an additional rental fee.
I lived in an apartment for almost 23 years and it went from "no pets allowed" to "pets welcome" - for an additional $25 per month.
This is not correct. This merely furthers the problem that creates out-of-control children. It is true that many spoiled children are spoiled because we have a society that believes that children are not responsible for their own actions.
We blame the parents, we blame the schools, we blame the police, we blame anyone but the kids. We give the kids excuses while telling them they are the greatest little snowflakes that God ever created. That is one of the reasons our kids are protesting. They are waking up to the fact that the world just doesn't agree with them that they are great and wonderful and should have everything they want.
We created spoiled children by telling them its anyone and everyone's fault that they cannot have what they want when they want it. We have to stop telling them its their parents fault, or its their teachers fault or its the governments fault. If we don't the occupy folks will just be the leading edge of a generation that cannot take personal responsibility.
But I would be seriously reluctant to rent to a family with a single parent unless I knew them well, since these are often unstable situations.
I’m waiting for a grocery store to implement a “no children” day. I’d love to go shopping without having to dodge children or the huge messes they make in the aisles. Some parents let the kids run wild with the shopping carts. Numerous times I’ve had my cart hit by these little tykes. When a parent gives me a dirty look for speaking to their little angel in a stern voice I just tell them, “If you would control your child I wouldn’t have to do it for you.” One “lady” got very irate when I referred to her little darlings as barbarians (I purposely avoided using savage). She accused me of being racist. I told her barbarians come in all shades.
if you have property to rent, post notices on local Church bulletin boards...
In 1988, I was based in Charlotte, NC and needed to rent an apartment. I found a great, safe place that I could afford and went in to sigh the rental agreement. I was given a document to read and sign that stated if I understood that I could not have children while living there. If I got pregnant and had a baby, I would have to move out I think it was 6 months after the birth. I asked if the father also lived in the complex, would he also have have to move out. The apartment manager laughed and said no. I was in a very tough spot and had absolutely no choice but to sign the document. It was changed within a year of my move and children were allowed. I certainly had no plans of getting pregnant but it was tough to sign. I didn’t complain as I had bigger things going on but today, I would pursue something this discriminatory. It is still today one of the worst feelings, having to sign that document. I can’t explain it. I was so sad and angry but at the same time I felt someone’s foot on my neck so far as being sure I didn’t get pregnant. (I didn’t have a boyfriend at the time and certainly wasn’t promiscuous but that is beside the point. At least half the tenants were women.)
I wonder how many women were affected by this as it had been in effect long before I moved in.
Fascinating and I’m sorry about how it made you feel, but isn’t that the point. We are against discrimination because of how it makes people feel. Is that a matter for the law or morals?
I see exactly what you mean and that clause would infuriate me as well. Were there any alternative rentals? What was the harm, i.e. you weren’t pregnant and didn’t plan on being so who had standing?
You clearly were in conflict between the owners property rights and those rights which are inherent to your status as a woman. Only women can get pregnant so is it wrong to distinguish between the mother and the father of the child? I’m not trying to rub salt in the wound, but just curious about the idea. What should we do when rights collide?
The Left/communists side with the class that appears least powerful and against Natural Law. Does that provide for the best outcomes or not?
So they’ve moved with the market. This proves that the market works or did your locality pass a law forcing them to accept pets?
[ This is not correct. ]
It is too correct... once spoiled a child becomes a spoiled adult.. someone marrys and then ultimately divorces them.. and/or performs many other dysfunctions..
Once spoiled... then the child/adult becomes responsible for themselves..
And usually a spoiled adult will raise spoiled children..
The “CYCLE” begins... becomes a “curse” on “that” family.. for generations..
Dr. Spock(of the sixtys) didn’t solve problems he created them where there were none.. His concepts were a disease that infected a whole generation.. Learn to identify this disease.. Some of the people you know have it.. Maybe your spouse.., If he/she refuses to punish..
Most rental problems come from female head of household families - gangs, drugs, misbehavior. So your response is logical, but the law says you are wrong and the penalties are severe.
You are absolutely correct. My children never misbehave in public and a mild verbal correction is all it takes to get them back on target if they do get too boisterous, but that takes good parenting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.